See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :

The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus :

How can materialism account for this major sort of self-directed neuro-plasticity by this amazing woman who could literally change her brain via mind training , via her informed thoughts and efforts , if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body ,as those lunatic materialists wanna make us believe :

Canadian Barbara Arrowsmith Young is a living proof of the falsehood of materialism .

Barbara Arrowsmith Young could "fix " here severe mental disabilities by developing brain or mind training that relied on the work of Russian neurologist Luria's book " The man with a shattered world " , here is her book on the subject :

See what this Canadian neurologist has to say about materialism and science , about the materialist myths in science regarding the origin and nature of consciousness , about the placebo/ nocebo effects , and much more :

See this also , concerning the capacity of the mind to change the structure and wiring of the brain : challenges the materialist mechanical myth that the brain is hardwired or that brain's anatomy is fixed after the critical period of childhood, or that the brain just deteriorates from that period onward ....: neuroplasticity : The brain that changes itself :

See how thoughts , mind training , meditation and mindfulness can make people get rid of their negative "deceptive brain messages " (Cognitive psychology or therapy WITHOUT any medicines involved " WITHOUT any side effects whatsoever , ever thus ", or in combination with them for severly mentally ill patients , .... that relies on the work of physicist Henry P.Stapp 's Zeno effect , and Hebb's law, and on the non-materialist interpretations of neuroscience :

There is no radical separation between matter and mind thus = no mind-body problem .

We can't thus speak of separate matter and separate mind , as we should abandon the materialist assumption that the mind has no causal effects on matter + that the observed "objecttive reality " can be separated from the consciousness of the observer .

That means also that consciousness intervenes actively in the so-called physical reality , also by altering it and more via downward causation , and vice versa .

Even at the "material level " , there are both upward and downward causations: complex structures have downward causations regarding their simpler or sub-structures and vice versa .

It's all very well saying that there's no division between the two, but unless you can spell out the mechanism by which sentience can announce its existence to an information system (whether it's separate from it or part of it), you do not understand the issue. If you can spell it out, then you've got a bombshell, and it'll be a better bombshell than the one you think you have.

This famous psychology test , and the related great book show how our human perception or attention focus are so deceptive , selective and more : (Materialists have been missing the GORILLA in the room ,thanks to their materialist false belief that shapes their consciousness, big time ) :

There is no radical separation between matter and mind thus = no mind-body problem .

We can't thus speak of separate matter and separate mind , as we should abandon the materialist assumption that the mind has no causal effects on matter + that the observed "objecttive reality " can be separated from the consciousness of the observer .

That means also that consciousness intervenes actively in the so-called physical reality , also by altering it and more via downward causation , and vice versa .

Even at the "material level " , there are both upward and downward causations: complex structures have downward causations regarding their simpler or sub-structures and vice versa .

It's all very well saying that there's no division between the two, but unless you can spell out the mechanism by which sentience can announce its existence to an information system (whether it's separate from it or part of it), you do not understand the issue. If you can spell it out, then you've got a bombshell, and it'll be a better bombshell than the one you think you have.

Dave, Dave :

Prior note :

Quantum theory shows that what we call matter and mind are inseparable .

First : The bottom line is :

There is an overwhelming body of evidence that has been sending all those materialist myths , including those concerning the origin, function and nature of consciousness, to the land of the wizard of Oz , or to Alice's wonderland where they belong .

Second :

There is also an overwhelming body of evidence that has been proving that the mind does have fundamental causal effects on matter brain and body ,the mind that can change even our biology , brain wiring , DNA expression, boost the immune system and much more just via thoughts and training ...that we even can have control and change our biological vital functions which are NOT under our control normally ...that beliefs can heal the body or damage it or even kill it : see the placebo /Nocebo effects , for example .

and much more : see my latest posts to Cheryl here above .

Third : We still do not know how exactly how mind and body interact with each other , if interaction is the right expression of that , since mind and matter are inseparable = 1 .

I think that consciousness has been underlying "matter " and the laws of physics , not the other way around .

If you had something new to say, you'd be able to link to one single place where the revelation resides and we could all go there and see the mechanism laid bare as to how consciousness fits into the model. Instead of that, you're playing your usual game of bombarding people with useless reading and viewing which will only waste their time. We'll, like last time, you've had enough of my time already, so now I'm out. If other people want to help you rack up another 70 pages, that's up to them.

Science is all about models. As far as I know we cannot prove that something is actually true or false, but we can propose models that allow us to make testable predictions.

I choose to model my brain as a computer, and my mind as several programs running simultaneously on that computer. The fact that the programs can physically alter both the dynamic and static properties of the computer is not surprising. A computer reads and writes data all the time (and this is physically observable, measurable, and very understandable/interpretable).

Are the programs material? In a very round about way, yes. I don't entirely understand the physics of coding, but there is a physical computer, a machine language, and other languages built on it. Is there any predictive power in choosing a model in which the programs are not material? I can't think of any at the moment, but perhaps there is.

Is it surprising that neuroplasticity is observable and measurable? Not to me. We know that people can physically change their brains as they learn new facts, acquire new skills, or just practice the same thing over and over and over. That the mind is not measurable other than through the action of the brain does not necessarily mean that the mind itself is not material, and more than a program could be considered material. We can see how the material world affects the mind (various drugs, brain damage, electrical impulses) and we can see how the mind affects the material world (neuroplasticity, people's actions [I will NOT count anything about the "observer effect" here until someone shows me some solid experimental results demonstrating this]) Given that the mind and material world interact with each other, I see no reason not to think that therefore the mind is material in essence.

What insight do we gain by using models in which the mind is not material?

If you had something new to say, you'd be able to link to one single place where the revelation resides and we could all go there and see the mechanism laid bare as to how consciousness fits into the model. Instead of that, you're playing your usual game of bombarding people with useless reading and viewing which will only waste their time. We'll, like last time, you've had enough of my time already, so now I'm out. If other people want to help you rack up another 70 pages, that's up to them.

Ciao baby!

(I started this thread by sending you or referring you all to 1 particular site mainly , didn't i , Dave ? )

No , you just want something that would fit into and confirm your own world view on the subject , that's all.That's why you have been insisting on seeing it all through your interface and mechanical world view .

The manifesto of this thread should have given you enough clues to start with,so .

Not to mention that i am not a magician lol or a dogmatic deluded fool like materialists are ,who would woud be able to show you consciousness' nature , function and origin emerging from some sort of a hat lol

Hallooooo : we're talking here about the most hard problem ever : consciousness ....The materialist theory of consciousness is certainly false , and there is overwhelming evidence for what consciousness can do ....See above .

See what i said above on the subject in my previous posts .

Bye , Dave .Just go back to chasing a mirage .Good luck .

The new science is already born , and it does not need either your approval or attention . Ciao. Nice "talking " to you again . Your predictable thought and thus behavior patterns make no room for what the new science is all about , unless you try to change them .And yes, you can . Take care . Life is 2 short , enjoy it .Best wishes.Cheers.

Science is all about models. As far as I know we cannot prove that something is actually true or false, but we can propose models that allow us to make testable predictions.

I choose to model my brain as a computer, and my mind as several programs running simultaneously on that computer. The fact that the programs can physically alter both the dynamic and static properties of the computer is not surprising. A computer reads and writes data all the time (and this is physically observable, measurable, and very understandable/interpretable).

Are the programs material? In a very round about way, yes. I don't entirely understand the physics of coding, but there is a physical computer, a machine language, and other languages built on it. Is there any predictive power in choosing a model in which the programs are not material? I can't think of any at the moment, but perhaps there is.

Is it surprising that neuroplasticity is observable and measurable? Not to me. We know that people can physically change their brains as they learn new facts, acquire new skills, or just practice the same thing over and over and over. That the mind is not measurable other than through the action of the brain does not necessarily mean that the mind itself is not material, and more than a program could be considered material. We can see how the material world affects the mind (various drugs, brain damage, electrical impulses) and we can see how the mind affects the material world (neuroplasticity, people's actions [I will NOT count anything about the "observer effect" here until someone shows me some solid experimental results demonstrating this]) Given that the mind and material world interact with each other, I see no reason not to think that therefore the mind is material in essence.

What insight do we gain by using models in which the mind is not material?

See the above displayed video of Karl Popper on the nature of science .The latter is not about the truth indeed , as we can never prove any theory , model or knowledge to be " true " , ever , no matter how many amounts of unsuccesful falsifications they might pass successfully, because it would have to take only one single successful faslifiaction to make them irreversibly false = all knowledge remains hypothetical untill other knowledge or theories , models with more explanatory power than the rest are discovered or invented , found ...

The mechanical materialist theory of nature is certainly false , partly because it cannot account for consciousness , to mention just that , and there is a non-materialist theory of consciousness with more explanatory power that's been supported by an overwhelming body of evidence , so, why should scientists be so irrational illogical , DOGMATIC ( Science is all about dispelling dogmas .Science is not a dogmatic ideology or religion as the current materialist science most certainly IS ) , and unscientific as to stick to the fomer instead of to the latter , according to you ? That's how science works and progresses : successfully faslified theories, knowledge , models must be abandoned and replaced by those that have more explanatory power through evidence and other : see the history of science then .

Scientists should follow the evidence wherever it might take them or lead them to ,and modify their models accordignly , not the other way around , instead of confining science within a particular world view : determinist mechanical materialism in this case that's still stuck within the classical Newtonian world view .The latter that's been superseded by quantum theory .

And no , the computer or machine metaphors regarding life are not models , since they are consequences of the false mechanical materialist world view , and since models should be scientific .

What's so scientific about the mechanical materialist world view then ? Nothing = zero .

And yes, we can observe , measure , scan , see, test , predict ...neuro-plasticity at work , but what or who triggered it then ? The brain itself ?, since the mind is in the brain lol or just brain activity , according to the false materialist theory of consciousness ? That's a materialist mechanical false theory of consciousness, NOT a model of consciousness : can you see the difference ?

Did you at least read that manifesto ? or did u take a look at what those non-materialist scientists have been saying or at the overwhelming evidence they have been gleaning , accumulating and gathering ...? Of course not .

Why write a long hollow talk without looking at the evidence that has been delivered by the non-materialist scientists then ? Why stick to an unscientific and false "model" : that of mechanical comupter-like materialism ?

You gottta be a fool , an ignorant or a deluded DOGMATIC materialist to do that .

We'll, like last time, you've had enough of my time already, so now I'm out. If other people want to help you rack up another 70 pages, that's up to them.

Ciao baby!

My time is also limited and wasting it rehashing this tiresome subject with someone as intransigent as Don..... is something I wish not to pursue. Reminds me of a sign I once saw at the Zoo, the written instructions about not feeding the animals? This discussion is one I personally wish not to feed any longer!

This discussion will most likely end the same way it did the last time. With no resolution, nonsense piled upon more nonsense, and outrageous amounts of bandwidth wasted. I like David am not up to it again so I will also bow out. If Don...... is fortunate enough to find someone here gullible enough to offer support to this crackpot scheme, let them revel in it together. But it is not based upon the good scientific method and holds little prospect of ever being such.

This famous psychology test , and the related great book show how our human perception or attention focus are so deceptive , selective and more : (Materialists have been missing the GORILLA in the room ,thanks to their materialist false belief that shapes their consciousness, big time ) :

I'm fully aware that mental ie brain activity has physiological effects on the rest of the body, but it can also be explained, better explained in fact, by conventional neuroscience than by the dualist model, which as Dave keeps pointing out to you requires a kind of interface between the immaterial and the material.

And by the way, there are lots of examples of macro-evolution. Do you need some?

At anyrate, Thursday I am having surgery for a sigmoid resection under general anesthetic, and I will let you all know if my non local consciousness has any zany adventures has while my brain is temporarily off line.

At anyrate, Thursday I am having surgery for a sigmoid resection under general anesthetic, and I will let you all know if my non local consciousness has any zany adventures has while my brain is temporarily off line.

I'll be wishing you all the best Cheryl. Hopefully, this procedure will be completely successful and we can have your pleasant personality back with us very soon here at TNS. Good luck my friend............................Ethos

See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :

The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus :

I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.

Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.

See this about how no chemical theory can account for macro-evolution , let alone for biological information , by a prominent chemist, since materialists assumes that psychology is just applied biology , biology just applied chemistry , chemistry just applied physics ... :

The materialist version of evolution, for example, is full of fairy tales thus :

I had a brief look and what the article actually says isA member of the "intelligent design" conspiracy says that he doesn't understand evolution - which is no shock because he's not a biologist, and he says that some other people- whom he doesn't name, also don't understand it.

Given that nobody fully understands it, the ignorance of a chemist and a few of his friends is utterly meaningless.

What are you talking about ? The man is a prominent chemist who should know what he's talking about , and he's no proponent of ID .

For your information : no chemical theory can account for either macro-evolution nor for the origin of life , let alone for biological or life information .That's a fact you should know , a fact known to all chemists , biologists ...

And yes, ID is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with creationism : read those books i mentioned above on the subject , instead of relying on wikipedia .You're confusing creationism with ID , so, since when are courts the place where scientific theories are settled ? lol

At anyrate, Thursday I am having surgery for a sigmoid resection under general anesthetic, and I will let you all know if my non local consciousness has any zany adventures has while my brain is temporarily off line.

Wow , Cheryl . My heart goes to you and to your beloved ones in that regard ,I wish you a good successful surgery and recovery . Your health is more important than what you can tell us about your experience under anesthetic .Best wishes, lady . Cheers .

This famous psychology test , and the related great book show how our human perception or attention focus are so deceptive , selective and more : (Materialists have been missing the GORILLA in the room ,thanks to their materialist false belief that shapes their consciousness, big time ) :

I'm fully aware that mental ie brain activity has physiological effects on the rest of the body, but it can also be explained, better explained in fact, by conventional neuroscience than by the dualist model, which as Dave keeps pointing out to you requires a kind of interface between the immaterial and the material.

Neither you nor Dave understand what's at stake here , mainly the fact that the materialist theory of nature and all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness have been proven false through an overwhelming body of evidence , but , you keep sticking to them , like all materialists do : that 's dogmatism in science , while the latter is no dogmatic ideology like the current materialist science certainly is , that's why that manifesto saw the light ......

Neuroscience can be interpreted non-materialistically too , and with better explanatory power at that than the false materialist theory of consciousness .

And who talked about any dualism either ? I said : there is no separate matter or separate mind as such , only matter-mind that are inseparable as quantum theory shows , or as one particular interpretation of the latter shows .

Quote

And by the way, there are lots of examples of macro-evolution. Do you need some?

Keep deluding yourself : there is no scientific evidence for macro-evolution , just materialist fairy tales speculations , simply because no chemical theory to date can account for that .

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.